[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25204]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA5-1-5539a, WA27-1-6612a; FRL-5078-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Washington
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conditionally approves a
revision to the State implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State
of Washington for the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the
National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted by the State
to satisfy certain Federal requirements for an approvable moderate
nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for Tacoma, Washington.
DATES: This final rule will be effective on December 12, 1994 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by November 14, 1994. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Branch
(AT-082), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for
public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA may be examined during
normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 10, Air &
Radiation Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-082), Seattle, Washington
98101, and the State of Washington Department of Ecology, 4450 Third
Avenue SE., Lacey, Washington 98504.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claire Hong, Air and Radiation Branch
(AT-082), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, (206) 553-1813.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Tacoma, Washington, area was designated nonattainment for PM-10
and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) (official
designation codified at 40 CFR 81.348). The air quality planning
requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas are set out in
subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act.2 EPA has issued a
``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title I of the
Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM-10
nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April
16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing
its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer
to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the
interpretations of title I advanced in this notice and the supporting
rationale. In this rulemaking action on the State of Washington's
moderate PM-10 SIP for the Tacoma nonattainment area (referred to as
Tacoma or the Tacoma Tideflats), EPA is applying its interpretations
taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented.
Additional information supporting EPA's action on this particular area
is available for inspection at the address indicated above. Those
States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas (those
areas designated nonattainment under CAA section 107(d)(4)(B)) were
required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by
November 15, 1991:
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
\2\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, subpart 1 and
subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provisions to ensure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to ensure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area (see sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act).
Additional provisions are due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see CAA section 189(a)).
The Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) submitted the new
source review requirements for this area on October 22, 1993. EPA will
address that submittal in a separate Federal Register document.
Such States also were required to submit contingency measures by
November 15, 1993, which become effective without further action by the
State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to
achieve RFP or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory
deadline (see CAA section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-
13544). EPA addresses the contingency measures the State has submitted
for Tacoma in part II.8 of the discussion below.
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). Section 110(k)(4) of
the Act authorizes EPA to approve a plan revision based on a commitment
by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain,
but not later than one year after the date of approval of the plan
revision. EPA would then assess the approvability of the submittal
after the State fulfilled its commitment. However, if the State fails
to comply with its commitment, section 110(k)(4) provides that a
conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval. If the
conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the sanctions clock
under section 179 of the Act and the Federal implementation plan clock
under section 110(c)(1) of the Act will begin.
In this action, EPA is granting conditional approval of the plan
revisions submitted to EPA for Tacoma, Washington, on November 15, 1991
and June 30, 1994 (hereafter generally referred to as a single
submittal), except for the following elements of the SIP which are
described below or in the Technical Support Document associated with
this rulemaking. EPA is approving these following elements without
conditions: exclusion from precursor controls, the monitoring network,
the procedures for consultation and public notification, the provisions
for revising the plan and the adequacy of funding and authority.
EPA conditionally approves the submittal because it does not fully
meet certain applicable requirements of the CAA for moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas. The submittal does not meet the requirements to
provide for the implementation of RACM (including RACT), to demonstrate
timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS (or demonstrate that timely
attainment is not practicable), and to provide for quantitative
milestones and reasonable further progress. See CAA sections 172(c)(1),
189(a)(1)(C), 189(a)(1)(B) and 189(c). Some of the control measures
relied on to satisfy these requirements have not been made enforceable
emission limitations. CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). However,
the State has submitted a commitment to adopt specific enforceable
measures on or before January 1, 1995, and to address the applicable
requirements of the Act. In its June 30, 1994 SIP revision, the State
committed to submitting federally enforceable emission limits to EPA by
January 1, 1995 for the following major stationary sources identified
in the SIP: Buffelen Woodworking, Continental Grain, Continental Lime,
Domtar Gypsum, Puget Sound Plywood, USG Interiors, US Oil and Refining,
Woodworth, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and Simpson Tacoma
Kraft Company.
The submittal is substantive and contains some specific enforceable
control measures. Accordingly, EPA is conditionally approving the
submittal, as authorized under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. EPA also
approves, without conditions, the separable exclusion from precursor
controls as described in part II.5 below, the monitoring network, the
procedures for consultation and public notification, the provisions for
revising the plan and the adequacy of funding and authority.
Analysis of State Submission
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see CAA section
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to
make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a
submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law
if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after
receipt of the submission.
The State of Washington Department of Ecology conducted a public
hearing to receive public comment on the State implementation plan
revision for PM-10 in Tacoma on November 7, 1991. WDOE adopted the
implementation plan for the area on November 15, 1991, and submitted it
to EPA the same day. In 1994, the plan was revised to amend its request
for conditional approval. WDOE conducted a public hearing to obtain
public input on this revision on February 17, 1994. The letter revising
the request for conditional approval was submitted to EPA on June 30,
1994. The November 15, 1991 and June 30, 1994 SIP submittals were
reviewed by EPA to determine completeness in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Letters
dated May 12, 1992 and August 1, 1994, were forwarded to the WDOE
indicating the completeness of the submittals and the next steps to be
taken in the review process.
2. PM-10 Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of allowable emissions in
the area. See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). Because the submission
of such inventories are necessary to an area's attainment demonstration
(or demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the
emissions inventories must be received with the attainment/
nonattainment demonstration submission (see 57 FR 13539).
WDOE submitted an emissions inventory of estimated actual emissions
for the base year of 1987 and the attainment year of 1994. The 24-hour
emission inventory identified three major source categories
contributing to particulate matter in the Tacoma Tideflats. These are,
in descending order of greatest contribution, industrial stack
emissions (66 percent); vehicle resuspended road dust (18 percent); and
industrial fugitive emissions (13 percent). Other contributing sources
were area sources, such as residential wood combustion and motor
vehicle exhaust. The emission inventory is dominated by one point
source, the Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company (Simpson), a paper pulp
producer, which accounts for 45 percent of the emission inventory.
For sources within the nonattainment area, the emissions inventory
provides a comprehensive list of particulate sources and utilizes
appropriate factor and estimations that were available at the time the
SIP revision was prepared. However, the emission inventory may
underestimate the impact of PM-10 sources outside of the nonattainment
area. Possibly due to where the nonattainment area boundaries were
drawn, there may be a significant source of PM-10 outside of the
nonattainment area. As is discussed in the Technical Support Document
(TSD), substantial evidence indicates that imported residential wood
combustion accounts for a large portion of the PM-10 in the Tacoma
Tideflats. For further information, the reader is referred to the TSD
accompanying this action, which is available at the EPA address
indicated above.
The emissions inventory estimating actual emissions along with
additional available information provides a sufficient basis for
determining the technical adequacy of the attainment demonstration for
this area consistent with the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
Clean Air Act.4 An additional attainment year emission inventory
issue, relating to the attainment demonstration, and other
requirements, is the use of actual instead of allowable emission
estimates for projecting attainment. This issue will be discussed in
more detail under the demonstration section of this document. Again,
the reader is referred to the TSD corresponding with this action for
further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the Act. See CAA section 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to ensure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993 (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of
EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57
FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
In broad terms, the State should identify available control
measures evaluating them for their reasonableness in light of the
feasibility of the controls and the attainment needs of the area. A
State may reject available control measures if the measures are
technologically infeasible or the cost of the control is unreasonable.
In addition, RACM, does not require controls on emissions from sources
that are insignificant (i.e. de minimis) and RACM does not require the
implementation of all available control measures where an area
demonstrates timely attainment of the NAAQS and the implementation of
additional controls would not expedite attainment. 57 FR 13540-13544.
Washington's control strategy for the Tacoma area provides for
attainment of the 24-hour standard based on control of industrial
emissions, fugitive industrial emissions including resuspended road
dust, and residential wood combustion. However, as indicated below,
some of the control measures are deficient because they are not
reflected in enforceable emission limitations. See CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A) & 172(c)(6). The State has committed to address this
deficiency and, based on section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA is
conditionally approving the submittal relative to the RACM (Including
RACT) requirement. The available control measures to be implemented in
Tacoma include the following:
a. Industrial Controls
The largest single reduction in the projected emission inventory
results from the control of industrial stack emissions. As stated
earlier, Simpson accounts for 45 percent of the emission inventory. In
1991, Simpson replaced the #2,3,4,5 hogged fuel boilers and #1 oil
boiler at the mill with a new hogged fuel boiler. Emissions from the
new boiler represent a 984 kg/day reduction in emissions, almost half
of Simpson's previous emissions, or roughly 19 percent of the total
baseline emissions inventory.
In addition, changes in industrial processes resulted in decreased
emissions; for example, U.S. Oil and Refining and Simpson changed fuel
sources to burn natural gas. The SIP assumes that emissions from mobile
sources will grow modestly from 1987 to 1994. Even including these
growth projections, the overall reduction in industrial PM-10 stack
emissions due to implementation of controls for all sources combined is
projected to be 17 percent of the base year's inventory. However, these
industrial changes and controls have not been expressed as enforceable
emission limitations. As discussed earlier, WDOE has committed to
submit enforceable emissions limits on the industrial sources by
January 1, 1995.
b. Industrial Fugitive and Resuspended Road Dust
The Tacoma emission inventory identified industrial fugitive
emissions and resuspended road dust as significant contributors of
particulate matter to the airshed. The Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency (PSAPCA) is a local air pollution control agency that
has jurisdiction over four counties in Washington State; PSAPCA's
jurisdiction includes the Tacoma Tideflats. PSAPCA's fugitive dust
regulation (Regulation I, section 9.15) was designed to reduce fugitive
dust from commercial and industrial activities and also to reduce dust
emissions from paved and unpaved roads and parking lots.
PSAPCA requires ``Best Available Control Technology (BACT)'' under
section 9.15 for all fugitive emissions from all incinerators, boilers,
manufacturing equipment and air pollution control equipment. The Tacoma
attainment plan lists and documents emission reductions from several
major facilities that were required to pave roads or add PM-10 controls
as the result of PSAPCA's application of section 9.15. Puget Sound
Plywood, Lone Star, Woodworth and Buffelen were required to either pave
roads or modify production processes to comply with section 9.15. The
SIP estimates that the application of section 9.15 would result in a
reduction of 73 kg/day of fugitive emissions from industrial sources.
After accounting for an increase of 39 kg/day due to industrial growth,
the net total reduction from the base year to the attainment year of
fugitive emissions is 34 kg/day. EPA accepts the emission reductions
claimed from this control measure as reasonable. Since it is generally
impractical to source test fugitive emission sources, a SIP must rely
on calculated emission estimates, and control efficiency estimates, to
arrive at emission reduction estimates.
Control of resuspended road dust is a significant component of
section 9.15. PSAPCA applies the same section 9.15 BACT provisions to
dust emissions from both private and public paved and unpaved roads. In
addition, all private roadways adjoining paved public roads and all
commercial properties with access points abutting paved public roads in
the Tacoma nonattainment area are required to implement BACT to
stabilize vehicular entrances and exits. The control measure also
appropriately prioritized preventing material deposition on roadways
over mitigating measures after deposition. Looking specifically at the
control of resuspended road dust, the plan uses an overall emission
reduction credit of 37 percent from resuspended road dust. EPA accepts
this estimate as reasonable.
c. Residential Wood Combustion
As previously noted, there is a substantial body of evidence
indicating that imported residential wood combustion is a large source
of Tacoma's PM-10. All three receptor models concluded that woodsmoke
was one of the main sources of particulate matter in the Tacoma
Tideflats area. The most recent receptor modeling study suggested that
residential wood combustion was an unexpectedly strong source of PM-10.
This is also supported by the Saturation Study conducted by EPA.
Additional discussion of the impact of imported residential wood
combustion can be found in the TSD associated with this action. Because
of the likely impact of imported residential wood combustion on
Tacoma's airshed, the available control measures adopted for
residential wood combustion are discussed here.
PSAPCA initiated a voluntary woodsmoke curtailment program
throughout its four county jurisdictional area, including Tacoma, in
the winter of 1987-88. The program changed to mandatory curtailment
beginning with the 1988-89 heating season, pursuant to WAC 173-433 and
the PSAPCA Regulation I, Article 13. The curtailment program is a two
stage plan. At Stage I, which is imposed when ambient PM-10 levels
reach 75 g/m3, the use of uncertified stoves and
fireplaces are banned. At Stage II, imposed when PM-10 levels reach 105
g/m3, all woodheating (fireplaces, certified and
uncertified woodstoves) is prohibited. The program exempts homes with
no other source of heat. WDOE and PSAPCA regulations contain additional
controls, including the prohibition of all fuels except dry, seasoned
wood in woodheating devices. Plume opacity for woodheating devices is
limited to 20 percent, with brief exceedances allowed for fire starting
and stoking. PSAPCA serves as the primary enforcement agency for the
curtailment and opacity portions of the control program. Both WDOE and
PSAPCA administer public education programs targeted at residential
wood burning. Throughout the State, WDOE also enforces a ban on the
sale of uncertified woodstoves.
The strength and depth of the legislated woodsmoke program, and the
size and historical effectiveness of the agencies involved,
demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the Tacoma area is achieving a
sufficient compliance rate to justify the 70 percent emission reduction
credit taken for these measures. A more detailed analysis of the
Washington woodsmoke curtailment plan is contained in the TSD. Since
PSAPCA administers the woodsmoke curtailment program throughout its
four-county jurisdictional area and the program affects sources both
within the nonattainment area and in adjoining areas, the 70 percent
emission reduction credit is applicable to both residential wood
combustion generated in the nonattainment area and imported residential
wood combustion.
As indicated, where sources of PM-10 contribute insignificantly to
the PM-10 problem in the area, EPA's policy is that RACM does not
require the implementation of potentially available control measures.
57 FR 13540. Further, EPA has indicated that for some sources in areas
which demonstrate timely attainment, RACM does not require the
implementation of otherwise available control measures that are not
``reasonably'' available because their implementation would not
expedite attainment (see 57 FR 13543). In the Tacoma situation, EPA
believes the significant sources, as well as several less significant
sources, of PM-10 in the area have been reasonably controlled. Thus,
EPA believes that RACM does not require the implementation of
potentially available control measures or technology for other de
minimis sources of PM-10 in the area. Further, EPA believes
implementation of such additional controls in this area would not
expedite attainment.
A more detailed discussion of the individual source contributions,
their associated control measures and an explanation as to why certain
available control measures were not implemented, can be found in the
TSD. EPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated
documentation and concludes that it adequately justifies the control
measures to be implemented. However, as addressed in more detail in
part II.4 below, not all of the emission reductions necessary to ensure
expeditious attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS are embodied in enforceable
emission limitations. Thus, EPA is conditionally approving the control
measures submitted for Tacoma, based upon a commitment by the State
that it will submit to EPA by January 1, 1995, legally enforceable
emission limits for the significant stack sources in Tacoma. See CAA
section 110(k)(4). This conditional approval is discussed further in
the section below.
4. Demonstration
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994 (see section 189(a)(1)(B) of the
Act). The General Preamble sets out EPA's guidance on the use of
modeling for moderate area attainment demonstrations (57 FR 13539).
Alternatively, if the State does not submit a demonstration of
attainment, the State must show that attainment by December 31, 1994,
is impracticable (CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii)).
Several studies have been conducted to determine sources of
particulate matter in the Tacoma nonattainment area. WDOE and PSAPCA
employed pollutant dispersion models in the Tacoma nonattainment area
using both guideline and non-guideline models. Neither RAM (guideline)
nor WYNDvalley (non-guideline) yielded results that were well
correlated to measured values. It is difficult to determine precisely
why dispersion modeling failed to yield acceptable values in the Tacoma
Tideflats when similar approaches have proven successful elsewhere, but
the TSD raises possible explanations, including where the boundaries of
the nonattainment were drawn and how the background PM-10 concentration
was established. The reader is referred to the ``Description of Air
Quality Modeling'' section of the TSD associated with this action for
further information.
In addition to dispersion modeling, three receptor modeling studies
were conducted in the Tacoma Tideflats to try to determine source
contribution of PM-10. Separate from these receptor modeling studies, a
saturation study was conducted to determine the site of maximum impact
in the Tacoma nonattainment area. Unfortunately, no single study
conclusively apportions the amount of PM-10 attributable to different
sources. As is discussed in the TSD, EPA has reservations about each of
these studies because of study design flaws, errors in conducting the
study, or changing composition of particulate matter in the airshed.
See the ``Attainment Demonstration'' section of the TSD for a longer
discussion of the individual studies.
Faced with several studies, none of which were definitive, the WDOE
attempted to address several diverse scenarios to demonstrate
attainment and maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS in the area. The SIP
contains three demonstrations of attainment and maintenance all using
rollback, a modified attainment demonstration that EPA may accept on a
case-by-case basis. The first demonstration presented in the SIP is
based on receptor modeling and proportional rollback; the second used a
dispersion modeling study and proportional rollback; and the last was
based on straight rollback. Tacoma's SIP meets the criteria for using
rollback as outlined in EPA guidance (Attachment 5 of''PM-10 Moderate
Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product,'' April 2, 1990). EPA's
primary concern about the demonstrations in the SIP is that they
underestimate the amount of PM-10 from residential wood combustion
coming into the nonattainment area from surrounding areas.
As discussed in the TSD, EPA believes that when looking at the
receptor modeling and saturation studies as a whole, there is a
substantial body of evidence indicating that residential wood
combustion was and is a major source of PM-10 in the airshed. As
discussed in the TSD, this residential wood combustion is probably
being imported into the nonattainment area, and a conservative lower
bound estimate is that 35-45 percent of the PM-10 in the Tacoma
Tideflats on the design day is attributable to residential wood
combustion. A more detailed discussion of this point can be found in
the ``Attainment Demonstration'' of the TSD.
EPA notes that there has been uncertainty over source contribution
in the Tacoma nonattainment area despite numerous efforts by PSAPCA,
WDOE, EPA and other entities to characterize the airshed. In reviewing
the SIP, EPA has considered all relevant studies referenced in the SIP
as well as additional information, such as the saturation study. Based
on these studies, EPA finds that imported residential wood combustion
is a much larger source of PM-10 than currently accounted for in the
SIP.
To evaluate the impact of imported residential wood combustion into
the nonattainment area, the TSD associated with the rulemaking contains
a rollback analysis that incorporates a relatively conservative
estimate of the residential wood combustion being imported into the
nonattainment area. As noted earlier, Tacoma's SIP meets the criteria
for using rollback. In the ``Attainment Demonstration'' discussion of
the TSD, EPA sets out a rollback scenario that incorporates the
estimate that 35-45 percent of the PM-10 in the Tacoma Tideflats on the
design day is attributable to residential wood combustion. A mandatory
residential woodsmoke curtailment program is being imposed over a four-
county area that includes the Tacoma Tideflats and surrounding
contiguous areas. As discussed earlier in section II.3 of this
document, PSAPCA's mandatory woodstove curtailment program warrants a
70 percent control measure credit. After applying control measure
credit for the mandatory woodstove curtailment program, the rollback
scenario presented in the TSD demonstrates; to EPA's satisfaction, that
the PM-10 NAAQS will be attained by 1994.
Assurance of attainment and maintenance rests with the SIP's
control measures. The SIP contains a broad array of control measures
aimed at both industrial and residential sources. Based on the emission
inventory and related information about the estimated contribution from
residential wood combustion, these control measures, when they are made
fully enforceable (see below), will be sufficient to ensure attainment
and maintenance.
It should be noted that a major problem with the attainment
demonstration is the attainment year emission inventory used for point
(stack) sources. The inventory was based on actual emission estimates.
EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised, July 1986) generally
requires use of allowable emissions in inventories for the purposes of
modeling attainment of the NAAQS (see also CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A),
110(a)(2)(K) and 172(c)(6) of the Act). The requirement takes into
consideration possible increases from existing sources allowed by their
permits, registrations, or other regulatory mechanisms and ensures that
the control measures relied on in the SIP are based on enforceable
emission limitations. WDOE and PSAPCA, based on comments from EPA, were
not able to demonstrate that all point source emissions in the
nonattainment area would be unable to increase significantly above
actual levels. Consequently, there is no objective assurance, or
legally enforceable mechanism in place, to restrict a point source from
emitting above the estimated actual rate, should the source have the
physical capacity. Therefore, to ensure that the NAAQS will be
protected in the Tacoma nonattainment area, the currently allowable
emission limits must be reduced.
Despite the fact that Tacoma has been monitoring daily at the site
determined to be the site of maximum impact and has not had an
exceedance of the NAAQS at any monitor in four years, there are no
legal limits in place to prevent future increases from a few industrial
facilities that could consequently threaten attainment of the NAAQS. On
June 30, 1994, WDOE submitted a request for conditional approval of the
Tacoma nonattainment plan based on a commitment to reconcile the
actual/allowable emission limitation issue and thereby establish an
enforceable attainment demonstration. WDOE's commitment includes a
schedule to issue regulatory orders to appropriate point sources within
the nonattainment area that will restrict emissions (i.e. establish
allowable emission limitations) at or below the ``actual'' emission
estimates used in the attainment demonstration. EPA conditionally
approves the attainment demonstration for Tacoma on the basis of this
commitment. See CAA section 110(k)(4). The revisions to the emission
limitations for the affected sources will make enforceable the actual
emission limitations already being achieved and implemented in the
area.
Like the attainment demonstration, Tacoma's SIP contained three
maintenance demonstrations. The first demonstration is based on
receptor modeling and proportional rollback; the second used a
dispersion modeling study and proportional rollback; and the last was
based on straight rollback; however, the last demonstration failed to
show maintenance through 1997. EPA believes that the failure of the
third demonstration to show maintenance through 1997 is due to the
SIP's low estimate of imported residential woodsmoke.
In the ``Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration'' section of the
accompanying TSD, EPA considered additional information and analyses in
assessing the maintenance demonstration, including using rollback that
differs from the SIP in its estimate of the amount of residential wood
combustion affecting the airshed. EPA believes that after evaluating
all of the studies of the Tacoma Tideflats, there is sufficient
evidence to support an interpretation that imported residential wood
combustion is a much stronger source of PM-10 than currently accounted
for in the SIP. Similar to the demonstration of attainment presented in
the ``Attainment Demonstration'' of the TSD, EPA believes a greater
background value that accounts for a large importation of residential
woodsmoke should be employed in the maintenance demonstration. Using
the emission inventory, growth factors, and point source emission
levels presented in the SIP, considering additional information about
the contribution of residential wood combustion and employing the same
background value as was used in the attainment demonstration discussed
in the TSD, the rollback analysis demonstrates maintenance through
1997, and would therefore satisfy the initial quantitative milestones
due for this area, as discussed in part II.6 below. However, as with
the attainment demonstration, some of the control measures relied on to
demonstrate continued maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS in the SIP are
deficient because they are not reflected in enforceable emission
limitations. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) & 172(c)(6). The State has
committed to address this deficiency and, based on section 110(k)(4) of
the CAA, EPA is conditionally approving the submittal relative to the
quantitative milestone and reasonable further progress requirements
discussed below.
The accompanying TSD discusses the dispersion, receptor and
saturation studies conducted in the Tacoma Tideflats, estimates the
amount of PM-10 attributable to residential wood combustion, and
presents a rollback demonstration for attainment and maintenance that
incorporates the estimate that 35-45 percent of the PM-10 in the Tacoma
Tideflats on the design day is attributable to residential wood
combustion. The reader is referred to the TSD associated with this
document for a more detailed discussion of any of these points.
5. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10, also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance
addressing how EPA intends to implement section 189(e) of the Act (see
57 FR 13539-13540 and 13541-13542).
The three receptor modeling studies conducted in the Tacoma
Tideflats show that sulfates and nitrates are not a significant portion
of the Tacoma PM-10 in the airshed. The three studies are discussed in
the TSD. The two receptor modeling studies conducted during the 1980s
show that nitrates accounted for less than 4 percent of the total PM-10
sampled mass, while sulfates contributed even less measuring less than
2.5 percent.
The third receptor modeling study, the Evaluation of the
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Contaminants to Puget Sound study was
conducted in the Tacoma Tideflats during 1989 and 1990. The Atmospheric
Deposition Study collected fine particulate ( 2.5
m) and coarse particulate ( 50 m). Most of
the precursor particles would be occurring in the fine particle range.
The analysis of the fine particles showed that SO4 was 9.3 percent
of the total mass of fine particles, while NO3 accounted for
approximately 5 percent of total mass of fine particles. As discussed
in the ``Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration'' in the accompanying
TSD, the Atmospheric Deposition Study was conducted during a period
when the airshed was considerably cleaner than the design year.
Moreover, control measures were in place during the Atmospheric
Deposition Study's sampling period; five of the sampling days occurred
during a ban on the use of uncertified woodstoves. Therefore, the
results of this study are likely to show less PM-10 due to woodsmoke
than probably occurred during the design year. Correspondingly, the
study's assessment of the amount of SO4 and NO3 found in the
airshed is likely to be greater on a percentage basis than would have
been the case during the design year.
Due to the relatively small amount of sulfates and nitrates in the
airshed, EPA has determined that it is unlikely that precursors do not
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in
Tacoma. In addition to these receptor analyses, a review of the
emissions inventory for this area did not reveal any major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors. The effect of this finding is to exclude
major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors from PM-10 nonattainment
area control requirements.
While EPA is making a general finding about the contribution of PM-
10 precursors for Tacoma, the determination is based on the current
character of the area including the existing mix of sources in the
area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the
significance of precursors in the area. The EPA intends to issue future
guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance of
precursor emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three (3) years until the area is redesignated
attainment and which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1),
toward attainment by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act).
Reasonable further progress is defined in CAA section 171(1) as such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by Part D or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.
While section 189(c) plainly provides that quantitative milestones
are to be achieved until an area is redesignated attainment, it is
silent in indicating the starting point for counting the first 3-year
period or how many milestones must be initially addressed. In the
General Preamble, EPA addressed the statutory gap in the starting point
for counting the 3-year milestones, indicating that it would begin from
the due date for the applicable implementation plan revision containing
the control measures for the area (i.e., November 15, 1991 for initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas). See 57 FR 13539. As to the number
of milestones, EPA believes that at least two milestones must be
initially addressed. Thus, submittals to address the SIP revisions due
on November 15, 1991 for the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
must demonstrate timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the second
milestone should, at a minimum, provide for continued maintenance of
the standards.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Section 189(c) provides that quantitative milestones are to
be achieved ``until the area is redesignated attainment.'' However,
this endpoint for quantitative milestones is speculative because
redesignation of an area as attainment is contingent upon several
factors and future events.
EPA believes it is unreasonable to require planning for each
nonattainment area to cover quantitative milestones years into the
future because of the possibility that such time may elapse before
an area is in fact redesignated attainment. On the other hand, EPA
believes it is reasonable for States initially to submit a
sufficient number of milestones to ensure that there is continuing
air quality protection beyond the attainment deadline. Addressing
two milestones will ensure that the State continues to maintain the
NAAQS beyond the attainment date for at least some period during
which an area could be redesignated attainment. However, in all
instances, additional milestones must be addressed if an area is not
redesignated attainment within the time period covered by the
initial milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In implementing RFP for this initial moderate area, EPA has
reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area
to assess whether the initial milestones have been satisfied and to
determine whether annual incremental reductions, different from those
provided in the SIP, should be required in order to ensure attainment
of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see CAA section 171(1)). As
indicated, the State of Washington's PM-10 SIP for Tacoma demonstrates
attainment in 1994 and maintenance through 1997, and therefore would
satisfy RFP and initial quantitative milestones (see 57 FR 13539) if
all of the control measures relied upon were reflected in enforceable
emission limitations. However, as discussed previously, WDOE and PSAPCA
based attainment and maintenance demonstrations on actual emission
estimates instead of the required allowable rates. The State has
committed to adopt the necessary enforceable allowable emission limits
by January 1, 1995. Accordingly, as with other requirements discussed
elsewhere in this document, EPA is conditionally approving the
submittal relative to the RFP and initial milestone requirements. CAA
section 110(k)(4).
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
WDOE and EPA (see CAA sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556). EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see CAA section
110(a)(2)(C)).
WDOE's control measures and regulations for control of Particulate
Matter, which are contained in the SIP, are addressed above under the
section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control measures apply
to the types of activities identified in that discussion including, for
example, fugitive emissions from point sources; vehicle resuspended
road dust; and residential wood combustion. The SIP provides that the
affected activities will be controlled throughout the entire
nonattainment area.
The TSD contains further information on enforceability requirements
including enforceable emission limitations; a description of the rules
contained in the SIP and the source types subject to them; test methods
and compliance schedules; malfunction provisions; excess emission
provisions; correctly cited references of incorporated methods/rules;
and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Both WDOE and PSAPCA have responsibilities in the implementation
and enforcement of control measures in the Tacoma nonattainment area.
PSAPCA retains authority over all area sources and all but the two
stationary sources in Tacoma that are regulated by the Department of
Ecology. PSAPCA has many compliance inspectors and, as discussed
further in the TSD, EPA considers PSAPCA's staffing level adequate to
ensure that the Tacoma attainment plan is fully implemented. As a
necessary adjunct of its enforcement program, PSAPCA also has broad
powers to adopt rules and regulations, issue orders, assess penalties,
require access to records and information, and receive and disburse
funds. The Washington State Department of Ecology has adequate
authority to implement and enforce the plan in the event PSAPCA fails
to make a good faith effort to implement and/or enforce the
regulations.
The two point sources in the Tacoma nonattainment area not under
PSAPCA's jurisdiction are the Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company and Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical Corporation. These sources are regulated by the
Washington State Department of Ecology. The Washington State Department
of Ecology's legal authorities, personnel and funding sources are
discussed in the accompanying TSD. EPA finds these authorities and
funding mechanisms adequate to ensure that the State will be able to
enforce the control measures in the Tacoma nonattainment area.
Controls on area sources, such as the residential wood combustion
program and the fugitive dust control program are also enforceable.
Discussion and justification of EPA's reasoning can be found in the
control measure section of this document and the TSD.
However, as discussed elsewhere in this document, the use of actual
emission estimates rather than the significantly higher emission limits
allowed in the current WDOE or PSAPCA regulations is unacceptable.
WDOE, PSAPCA, and EPA could only enforce the allowable emissions that
are currently contained in the WDOE or PSAPCA regulations. There are no
mechanisms for any of the regulatory agencies to enforce the emission
estimates used in the attainment and maintenance demonstration because
they are well below the legal limits allowed in the WDOE or PSAPCA
regulations.
A discussion regarding the use of actual instead of allowable
emissions contained in the demonstration portion of this document
provides background for the enforceability decision. The Region is
granting a conditional approval of the Tacoma attainment plan based on
the commitment contained in the June 30, 1994, submittal which will
make the emissions from point sources enforceable at or below the
levels used to demonstrate attainment and maintenance. EPA will need
additional technical documentation from WDOE if the emission levels in
the regulatory orders are greater than those used in the attainment and
three year maintenance demonstrations. Additionally, WDOE would need to
provide cogent attainment and maintenance demonstrations in order for
the SIP to be fully approved.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures (see generally 57 FR 13510-13512 & 13543-13544).
These measures must be submitted by November 15, 1993, for the initial
moderate nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of
other available measures that are not part of the area's core control
strategy. These measures must take effect without further action by the
State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to
make RFP or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory
deadline.
Assessing the adequacy of Tacoma's contingency measures is tied to
the attainment demonstration because Tacoma has submitted industrial
emissions controls in excess of those needed to demonstrate timely
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as a contingency measure. As discussed
above, Simpson's boiler replacement alone represents a 984 kg/day
reduction in emissions, almost half of Simpson's previous emissions, or
roughly 19 percent of the total baseline emissions inventory. Based on
the rollback discussion provided in the accompanying TSD, the Tacoma
SIP contains emissions limits and contingency measures that provide for
reductions greater than the 25 percent contingency measure emissions
reduction value suggested in the General Preamble (57 FR 13543-13544).
Further discussion can be found in the ``Contingency Measure'' section
of the accompanying TSD.
The contingency measures submitted as part of the Tacoma SIP ranged
from a commitment to implement mobile source controls to crediting the
emission limitations already existing in the SIP that would be in
excess of those needed to address the RACM (including RACT)
requirement. The two mobile source contingency measures in the 1991 SIP
were directed at reducing emissions from diesel vehicles: (1) the
establishment of an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and (2)
the reduction in sulfur content of on-highway diesel fuel. In 1993,
Washington State expanded its I/M program to include the Tacoma area,
and the desulfurization program was implemented nationally.
Only the measures that are being implemented prior to a
determination that the area has failed to timely attain or achieve RFP,
that would be in excess of those necessary to provide for timely
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS and that, therefore, go beyond RACM
(including RACT) can be relied on as contingency measures. The measures
will provide for continued emissions reduction progress beyond the core
control strategy. Further, because the State would implement these
precautionary measures prior to a determination that the area has
failed to timely attain the NAAQS or achieve RFP, these measures
essentially provide advance contingency benefit and satisfy the
requirement that they ``take effect . . . without further action by the
State, or the Administrator.'' EPA believes it would be unreasonable to
penalize or otherwise discourage the State from taking the arguably
more precautionary air quality management step of accelerating the
implementation of these contingency measures.
However, it cannot be determined whether these measures are in
excess of those necessary to provide for expeditious attainment and
necessary to address RACM (including RACT) until the State addresses
the deficiencies associated with its core control strategy. As
indicated elsewhere, the State has committed to convert measures
necessary to address RACM (including RACT) to enforceable emission
limitations. Until this commitment is fulfilled, EPA cannot conclude
that the contingency measures go beyond the core control strategy.
Therefore, EPA is conditionally approving these contingency
measures. Due to the submission of emission reductions that are
purportedly in excess of those necessary to demonstrate timely
attainment and necessary to satisfy RACM as a contingency measure,
final approval or disapproval of these contingency measures must be
determined when WDOE submits the regulatory orders establishing
enforceable emission limits for the stationary sources in the Tacoma
Tideflats.
III. Implications of This Action
EPA conditionally approves the plan revisions submitted to EPA for
the Tacoma, Washington, nonattainment area on November 15, 1991, and
June 30, 1994, except for the following elements which EPA approves in
full. EPA also approves, without conditions, the separable exclusion
from precursor controls as described in part II.5 above, the monitoring
network, the procedures for consultation and public notification, the
provisions for revising the plan and the adequacy of funding and
authority. EPA will assess the final approvability of the submittals
EPA is conditionally approving after the State fulfills its commitment
to submit enforceable emission limitations by January 1, 1995. If the
State fails to comply with its commitment, the conditional approval
will become a disapproval.
IV. Administrative Review
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2224), as revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. OMB has exempted this regulatory action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 12, 1994. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (see CAA section 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(2)).
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. This action will be effective on December 12, 1994
unless adverse comments are received by November 14, 1994. If the EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule (please see the proposed rule
published, simultaneously, in the proposal section of this Federal
Register).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new
requirements, EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact
on small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. ,
427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect
its State-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing State requirements nor does it substitute a new Federal
requirement.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for
the State of Washington was approved by the Director of the Office
of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: September 20, 1994.
Gerald A. Emison,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart WW--Washington
2. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(48) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(48) On November 15, 1991, the Director of WDOE submitted to EPA a
PM-10 nonattainment area SIP revision for the purpose of bringing about
attainment of the National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted
by the State to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements for
an approvable moderate nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for Tacoma,
Washington.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letters dated November 13, 1991 and June 30, 1994 from WDOE to
EPA submitting revisions to the State of Washington SIP.
(B) State Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter in the Tacoma
Tideflats, Pierce County, including appendices A-F, dated November
1991, and adopted November 14, 1991.
[FR Doc. 94-25204 Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
